Tiviot Way Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2015] EWHC 2489 (Admin) (21 July 2015)

Tiviot Way Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2015] EWHC 2489 (Admin) (21 July 2015)

The Secretary of State erred in law by failing to engage with the development plan as a whole and by finding conflict with CS10(3) when the appeal site was not within a designated green wedge according to the development plan and its key diagram. The decision was based on an incomplete and incorrect application of section 38(6) and took into account immaterial considerations.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 2489 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Tiviot Way Investments Ltd; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant/interested Party: Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; decision quashed
Legal Topics
Section 288 Challenge, Interpretation of Development Plan, Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Green Wedge Policy, Material Considerations in Planning, Judicial Review of Planning Decisions
Administrative Law Planning Law Section 288 Challenge Interpretation of Development Plan Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Green Wedge Policy Material Considerations in Planning Judicial Review of Planning Decisions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tiviot Way Investments Ltd

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

Second Defendant/interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State lawfully applied section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 in determining conflict with the development plan as a whole
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State lawfully concluded that the development conflicted with CS10(3) and the strategic objective of maintaining a green wedge

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State erred in law by failing to engage with the development plan as a whole and by finding conflict with CS10(3) when the appeal site was not within a designated green wedge according to the development plan and its key diagram. The decision was based on an incomplete and incorrect application of section 38(6) and took into account immaterial considerations.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; decision quashed

Orders

  • The Secretary of State's decision letter is quashed.
  • Second defendant to pay claimant's costs, to be agreed or subject to detailed assessment.